On 01/27/2011 05:58 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote: > On Sat, 2011-01-22 at 12:43:55 -0500, Michael Scheidell wrote: > >> oh, and to be safe: >> >> reject_rhsbl_helo dbl.spamhaus.org=127.0.1.2, >> reject_rhsbl_client dbl.spamhaus.org=127.0.1,2, >> reject_rhsbl_sender dbl.spamhaus.org=127.0.1,2, > Sound advice to advocate good practices, but in more recent version of > Postfix, this should not be required. Wietse cleaned up the > reject_rhsbl code to hopefully avoid these false positives. > >> or it might reject: mail from: <idiot@23.45.67.5> > That should be rejected even before the RHSBL checks with: > > 501 5.1.7 Bad sender address syntax > >> (127.255.255.255 is returned if you pass it an ip address) > 127.0.1.255 is returned for IP queries to the SpamHaus DBL. > >> withing seconds of putting on a 2000 user box, got hits. (just using >> _sender) looked up the sender's name and found 27 spams sent today >> that SA had to deal with (no more!) > Glad to hear it's working well for you - I'm having a similar > experience! > I'm using spamhaus and junkmailfilter. At the moment, what is missed by junkmailfilter is often caught by spamhaus (Obviously, because of the postfix settings!):
(postfix 2.7.n) reject_rbl_client hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com=127.0.0.2, reject_rbl_client sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
